Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts.

As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.

Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.” (NCA, Page 23)

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend slope by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected. Below is a graphical comparison of their Hot Spot theory versus reality, where reds denote warming and blues, cooling. Clearly, the government’s understanding of how CO2 gas traps heat is fundamentally flawed.

Models (top) vs. Measured Temperatures Changes (bottom)

Temperature plotted by Latitude -vs- Height (Atmospheric pressure)

NCA CLAIM #2: “Second LoE – Unusual Warming in recent decades”

“The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.” (NCA, Page 23)

RESPONSE: “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g. NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly.

The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics but that ceased over the last 15 years or more. Also, as the figure below shows, over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

If the observed warming over the last half century can anywhere be claimed to be unusual, it would have to be where it was greatest – in the Arctic. Both satellite and surface station data show a warming of about two degrees Celsius since the 1970’s. But the surface station data (see the Figure below) show that warming in context. Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak.

This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor.

It also points out an essential feature of most credible thermometer records that cover many decades. Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.

Using only the upward trend of the most recent half cycle to suggest relentless warming is very deceptive.

NCA CLAIM #3: Third LoE – “The Climate Models”

The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. (NCA, Page 24)

RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.

TheseClimate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.

NCA CLAIM #4: “Extreme Weather – Temperatures”

“global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.” (NCA, Page 8)

“The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)

RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to CLAIM #2, most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century occurred north of the tropics. But as shown below, this warming stopped over 17 years ago. Furthermore, the Hadley Centre (upon which the government and the UN IPCC heavily relied) recently announced a forecast that the GAST trend line will likely remain flat for another five years. See Decadal forecast, Met Office, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc (last visited Dec. 15, 2013).

As for claims about record setting U.S. temperatures, please see our response to CLAIM #2 above.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the draft National Climate Assessment, saying that “An overly narrow focus can encourage one-sided solutions, for instance by giving an impression that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will solve all of the major environmental concerns discussed in this report.” The NAS has also criticized “the lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties associated with the regional model projections,” saying that “Decision makers need a clear understanding of these uncertainties in order to fairly evaluate the actual utility of using these projections as a basis for planning decisions.”

NCA CLAIM #5

“Extreme Weather – Hurricanes”

“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.” (NCA, Page 20)

“Extreme Weather – “Droughts and Floods”

“both extreme wetness and extreme dryness are projected to increase in many areas.” (NCA, Page 33)

RESPONSE: According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.

Hurricanes have not increased in the United States in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900. Currently, the U.S. is enjoying a period of over eight years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. Government data also indicate no association between use of fossil fuels and tornado activity.

The data on droughts paint a similar picture. The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….” The IPCC also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.

Still More NCA CLAIMS

RESPONSE: All of the other government claims worth discussing have been answered effectively in other commentaries. These include those related to ocean and lake ice levels, sea levels, and ocean alkalinity. Detailed rebuttals of such government claims can be found in reports available from CATO, CEI, Climate Depot, Heritage, ICECAP, TWTW, and WUWT.

SUMMARY

The Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment begins with probably their most preposterous claims:

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” (NCA, Page 1)

“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.” (NCA, Page 7)

“There is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts” (NCA, Page 2)

RESPONSE: This is pure rhetorical nonsense born of a cynical attempt to exploit short term memories and/or little knowledge of the Earth’s climate history and climate processes.

Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

With the Earth’s vast oceans and atmosphere never in complete equilibrium, our climate will always be changing on time scales from weeks to months to years to decades to centuries and beyond. With a star varying cyclically as our heat source and with an enormous planet like Jupiter tugging on our orbit around the Sun, dramatic climate changes are expected to occur. (See pages 39-50 in USCA, Case #09-1322, Document #1312291, Filed: 06/08/2011.) However, none of these dramatic climate changes have any connection to our use of fossil fuels.

Yet the Obama Administration insists on building a House of Cards predicated on their Three Lines of Evidence as discussed in CLAIMS 1, 2, and 3 above. With all three of their Lines of Evidence shown to be invalid, their entire House of Cards collapses. For example, if increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not yield higher GAST, the claimed CO2 connection to higher sea levels is lost.

What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.

Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.

Dr. Neil FrankB.S., Chemistry, Southwestern College
M.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State
Former Director of the National Hurricane Center

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago
M.S., Physics, University of Chicago
B.S., Physics, University of Chicago

Dr. William M. Gray
Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago
B.S., Geography, George Washington University

Art Horn
B.Sc. Meteorology Lyndon State College
Teaches Meteorology/Climatology at Tunxis Community College
TV Meteorologist 25 years, lecturer, expert witness, radio broadcaster

George Taylor
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
President Applied Climate Services
Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists
B.A. Mathematics, University of California
M.S. Meteorology University of Utah

95 thoughts on “Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment”

Well done, Been hoping for something along these lines, and hope there’s much more to come. The NCA needs to be exposed as the outrageous affront to rational though that it is. It’s as blatant an example of propaganda as can be imagined from a modern, democratic government.

I confess to having lost some acuity of wit (fancy for maybe not being so smart anymore) so I need some help with LoE Two. Why go after “Global Temperatures” rather than Global Temperature. Showing that the number of record highs hasn’t changed much would not seem to me to show that a global mean has not increased. I assume the the Obama gang was driving at Global Mean, whatever that might actually imply.

Great rebuttal. We should probably refer to NCA’s “Lines _in_ Evidence” , the acronym works better.

“Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.”
Though I suspect this is correct, I do not think that it is any more proven scientifically than the CO2 claim. Making equally dubious counter claims does not seem productive.

The rest of the material seems solid and well founded. IMO, This one claim weakens the report.

I love the term “captive scientists.” That ought to rankle any who are employed by the government to produce politically correct balderdash. After all, this is “The Land Of The Free.” To be anything less than free is shameful. At some point the shame may drive some to throw off the yoke of slavery, and tell the government what they can do with their balderdash.

White House to host Google+ Hangout on climate
change
A Google+ Hangout hosted by the White House will be a chance for US energy
secretary Ernest Moniz and Environment Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy
to address the biggest environmental move of Obama’s presidency so far: his
plans to cut emissions from existing coal-fired power plants…
The Hangout will take place on Monday 19 May at 1pm ET, and participants can
submit questions to Moniz and McCarthy over Google+, Facebook and Twitter,
using the hashtag #WHClimateChat…
RTCC understands that the White House is now recruiting new staff to revamp
its climate change division ahead of next year’s UN conference in Paris…http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/15/white-house-to-host-google-hangout-on-climate-change/

Sadly we are dealing with the left here, which means no morals, no ethics, lie as much as you want because the end justifies any means (Goebbels would be proud). I just wonder how long until the concentration camps start up and people start getting herded?(agenda 21 for those unsure of what I am talking about).

The push is already on, so called scientific ethicists talking about abortions up to 10 years old, euthanasia for children as young as 10. They are just acclimatising us to a depopulation that is coming in the not too distant future. They also are attacking the family unit, which is the only thing that will stop them, break up the family and you have a population of sheep, easily led, controlled and culled when needed. It all seems unrelated to the climate debate, but it an integral part of what they are planning, and have been for many years.

Is going to get ugly people, so get in, hang on and enjoy the ride, if you survive it that is. But in the end, it will be worth it, as they will self destruct like all genocidal organisations before them, or they will be destroyed by right minded people eventually.

A sterling effort and, for academics, remarkably concise. However, it touches — without addressing — the fundamental problem: consensus. In an ideal world facts, objective analysis, scientific rigour, etc. would invariably trump consensus. In the real world consensus, unfortunately, is what counts. Gifted propagandists have always understood this. (“Four legs good; two legs better!”)

For the science to win, it is desirable to hammer the truth hard — but it is imperative to establish a consensus that seriously rivals the ‘authorised version’. Victor Hugo observed (very roughly) that nothing can withstand an idea whose time has come. The trouble is, the idea is not required to be true, decent or useful — merely popular.

As the information media are substantially in the hands of the warmists, so is the power to establish and defend a consensus. The main obstacles to this are not a few competent scientists of high integrity, or even a few decent blogs. The main obstacles are the physical and financial inconvenience of the (supposedly) necessary changes to our modes of living, and the malicious refusal of global temperatures to increase for nearly two decades.

By all means trumpet the scientific shortcomings of the Green Machine, but don’t forget to keep pushing the points that strike the most responsive chords. One day the flaws of CAGW, Climate Change, etc. should be a humorous footnote to history, but that day is still some way off and, if warming — for whatever reason — resumes, the shortcomings of the warmists’ arguments will be brushed aside.

The “captive scientists” (great term), label should carry the same or greater stigma as the one that is placed on the deniers as having been funded by big oil or big oil interests. Truth is truth, no matter who funded it.

I confess to having lost some acuity of wit (fancy for maybe not being so smart anymore) so I need some help with LoE Two. Why go after “Global Temperatures” rather than Global Temperature. Showing that the number of record highs hasn’t changed much would not seem to me to show that a global mean has not increased.

Yes, I wonder about that also.

Where’s the mention of 15 to 17 + years of statistically no cooling or warming atmospheric temperature in this portion of the rebuttal?

While the authors’ efforts are commendable, the issue is important enough to have warranted an attempt at standard, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Justly or not, such factors affect a piece’s persuasiveness and ability to attract endorsement.

Well done. Only one problem. If you haven’t noticed that culturally now we don’t think we feel. And we feel that CO2 is doing great danage and we feel that redistributing wealth is a good idea and we feel a CO2 apocalypse is a great excuse to do so. Stop hiding behind science slip on your mood ring, breathe, and feel. We and Gia are one.

How does science respond to a PR policy campaign in the first place? A PR campaign barely makes any effort to organize or acknowledge facts. At best it resorts to cherry picked data and disgraced studies like the hockey stick fraud. A PR campaign is all about win-the-day presentations with minimal checking by biased reporters and commentators.

Gorebots will see Exxon on there and cry foul, effectively. But I think the meltdown is far enough along now that the ramped up nastiness is motivating cooler heads in academia to finally speak out against alarm finally. The Achilles heal of leftists is their attachment to appearances and high moral authority so no, I don’t think my Upper West Side anti-fracking neighbors could stomach reeducation camps or anything else that made them look bad to non-activist observers. And until scientific bodies return to proper skepticism, in a way they remain moral in their outlook merely by assuming all the wiggly line plots are bogus on the skeptical side as those scientific bodies indeed at least indirectly claim in a blanket sense. With Obama and our new socialist mayor there is now actually a lot less political vibe to my dear neighbors than the spitting mad Bush era of now evaporated anti-war protests and constant political chatter. Despite the recession we are living in decadent times rather than highly oppressive times the likes of which breed deadly fanaticism in whole cultures.

I see Global Warming as a non-political wedge issue that is in fact highly political for the activist left however, so resistance to reason becomes an investment, the alternative likely being the collapse of the good reputation of the left against excesses of the right, including avid anti-science sentiments based on religious insecurities and outright Puritanism. Limiting life-saving stem cell funding was simply evil and Bush banned Edison bulbs too, and witness now just how little actual skeptical fight conservatives are putting up to spill the beans on climate fraud. Besides Inhofe, few are actually on the offensive and few actually cry foul instead of mere error. Where is the *Republican* all night (skeptical) presentation? Where is a huge investigation?

Galloping Camel is right. This is about politics, not science. The 2014 NCA is intended merely to provide cover for the new EPA emission rules which take effect in June. There will be large accompanying rate shocks for electricity ratepayers. NCA is simply intended to provide a response to the horde of complaints that will follow.

While I agree with you that the main goal has always been dramatic population reduction – blatantly stated when all this started a half-century ago, now much more subtle as the people behind it have gotten more devious – we in the West have little to fear – it’s in the developing 3rd world where the “human parasite” is really targeted for reduction. The people in the 3rd world are always the ones who the cretins behind these movements claim they most want to help, and it’s always those same vulnerable people who get hurt most. Here in the developed West I think it’s more just ever- increasing governmental control and a continuing slow move towards another supposed Marxist utopia, where everyone just sits around taking soma and there are never any problems. I’m not as confident as you are that the truth will prevail – the people behind all these movements never seem to get hurt, and simply go on to the next farce. Let’s hope I am wrong and this charade really blows up in their faces for once. Sites like this one (thanks Anthony!) are one reason why they all might just get caught this time.

I would still like to see a cost benefit analysis re: what it is costing us in jobs and GDP right now, let alone in the future, compared to what benefits are derived from the present attempts to mitigate ‘climate change’ or whatever they are now calling it. And remember, GDP includes government spending!

Excellent statement/rebuttal that is welcomed and necessary. And to all those that would nit pick anyone’s efforts to set the AGW record straight I suggest you put your efforts into writing something better rather than spout the “if it’s not perfect it only hurts our cause” meme. Thankfully someone(s) with credibility and expertise has the balls to go on record.

Precisely. We are attacking the source of their children’s food, private schools and future privileges. It is no wonder to me that they call us names and attempt to paint us as evil. They wish us far worse than that.

They are great in number and have the ear of the media combines, politicians and the fearful. We have empirical evidence a couple of blogs and some loose cannons. It doesn’t bode well. Some days even ‘good’ news doesn’t cheer me.

I reckon though 97% of scientists agree on the problem of Climate Change…you can still dig up a few of the 3% who are still convinced to come up with some sort of rebuttal. It is STILL though a very minority response and opinion.

“All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)”
This statement in the NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT REPORT is wrong according to the NCDC/NOAA own records
ANNUAL US temperatures are declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998. So where is this global warming threat? There are regional issues but these are not global events.

Winter temperatures in United States have been declining now for 17 years or since 1998 at about -1.78F/ decade according to NCDC/NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data. In United States, 8 out 12 months of the year are cooling. Winters, spring [2months] and fall are all cooling while only 3 months, namely March, June and July are still warming.

Not only have winters been getting cooler since 1998 in Contiguous US [48 states] and Canada, but winters have been getting colder for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and for the Globe as a whole. Canada just had its 24 th coldest winter in seven decades and some regions were 2 degrees C below normal. .. The winter temperatures in United States were colder in every region except the West and the long term trend since 1998 is that winters are getting colder. Overall, for United States the past winter was the 34th coldest since 1895
)

Well, maybe if the Republicans can win the Senate in the mid term elections, they can muster enough gumption to defund the EPA and halt this administration in their tracks. After all, Harry Reid in his short sightedness, has killed the ability to filibuster, so be careful what you ask for it, it might come back in spades!

We are battling over a theory in climate science that people can’t solidly connect to, especially, since the effects have always been projected in the distant future. This latest attempt by Obama, realizes that fact and attempts to connect it to right here and now extreme weather/climate (that has 0 actual correlation to increasing CO2).

This is what is missing:

The proven law of photosynthesis and massive positive contributions that increasing CO2 is irrefutably having……..right here and right now. The booming biosphere, vegetative health and record, bin busting crop yields and world food production are all things people can understand and relate to. We ALL learned about photosynthesis in elementary school. We all know about the key role that CO2 plays.

Everybody can relate to this vs complicated theories using mathematical equations to represent the physics of the atmosphere and the fact that, we need to rely on the experts, climate scientists, 97% who supposedly agree to guide us.

Photosynthesis:
CARBON DIOXIDE + water + light =SUGAR +OXYGEN

or as stated here:
“six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen”

I suggest getting a group of plant experts together to explain plant science and the incredible benefits that increasing CO2 is having on our planet which are being “swept under the rug” by, ironically, the ones calling us the deniers.

Agronomists, botanists, plant science authorities. All they need to do is tell the truth.

Craig Idso would be the ideal man to be in charge.

This is not a tactical plan to win a battle. It’s just about time for people to understand what CO2 is and what it does for life on this planet.

CO2=pollution brainwashed into heads/society is as silly as teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. However, the difference is that scientists/people who thought the earth was the center of the universe thousands of years ago, didn’t know any better.

Today, we understand enough about CO2 and everything about the law of photosynthesis to be 100% certain that its’ a beneficial gas and know better than to perpetrate a brainwash on people that states otherwise.

If these same scientists were supporting CAGW, their document would be trumpeted far and wide by every media outlet imaginable. I googled an exact quote from the document and google produces 2 hits. WUWT and Archive.Today.

It’s incredible the degree to which the U.S. “press” controls the narrative in support of the Progressive cause.

A website for students and teachers citing the report above. We can only hope that some students and teachers use it.

The last question for students – 7. Numerous results come up in an internet search for “White House global warming report.” However, a search for “scientists refute White House global warming report” results in 2 news outlet reports as of May 19. Why do you think the media is not reporting that reputable experts in the field disagree with the NCA and wrote a report refuting the NCA findings?

Well while fully supportive of the efforts of this eminently qualified group of scientists, I’m a bit dismayed by some of what they write in their rebuttal; to whit :-

“””””……“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.” (NCA, Page 23)…..”””””

“””””…..how certain gases trap heat……””””””

Now this is a part of the first line of evidence; Fundamental understanding of GH gases.

Apparently we lack a fundamental understanding of GH gases.

GH gases DO NOT trap “heat”. Well forget the bottom line, that so far, nobody has succeeded in trapping “heat”; at least not permanently; we can at best delay its dissipation, since ALL gases propagate “heat” via conduction, and or convection; so GH gases are in no way different from any other gases, in that regard.

Where GH gases differ from other NON GH gases, is that they capture (call it trap if you want) LONG WAVE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIANT ENERGY in the thermal emission spectrum of the earth.

The effect that is claimed to be the cause of all this donnybrook, is the selective absorption of long wavelength thermal EM radiation that is trying to escape from earth, thereby limiting the Temperature rise.

HEAT CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE EARTH (in any significant amount). ONLY EM radiant energy can escape.

So if we are going to make this debate “scientific”, we need to be pedantic about what we assert.

Well the good news is that “the other side” also don’t know the difference between EM radiant energy, and “HEAT” either.

Here on earth; “heat” is processed by GHGs just the same as any other gas; the molecules collide with each other and interchange kinetic energies between them, which is all that “heat is. There are no appreciable electromagnetic fields involved in gas molecules colliding with each other.

The NCA is as patent an example of fraud and mendacity as has ever been witnessed in the history of the world. Its purveyors are criminals who deserve the severest punishment, as do any government functionaries who would act upon its mandates.

The reason I find the National Climate Assessment Report so wanting is that it is grossly incomplete . If this report were to be issued in the private industry it would not get past the most basic review . The fundamental error is that it does not speak to all the critical climate risks. There is an equal risk that global warming as described in the report will not happen in the short term (next 2-3 decades) nor in the long term ( 2100 and beyond ). There is now clear observable evidence that instead of warming as predicted , the climate is now in a pause for 17 year plus and even cooling during fall, spring and especially during the winter. Peer reviewed papers by Wallace S. Broecker of Columbia University dated 1998 and called The End of the Present Inter glacial: How and When? , stated that “ periods of extreme warmth appear to be roughly one half of a precession cycle (ie.aprox. 11,000 years . He also states that the current or latest warmth period may already be 11,500 years . Are we are living on borrowed time?. This dwarfs the potential impact or risk from any minor warmth increase due to future ocean cycle and even less from any co2 level increases. Instead of just warning the people about global warming induced climate change, they should also be looking with greater energy on how we could survive a major cold cycle during the early phase of a glaciation period . Historical records show that the glaciation period once started, drops temperatures quite quickly. The 2013/2014 winter could be just a forerunner of what may lie ahead . We may have 20-30 years of cold weather in the immediate future but by 2060-2100, we may have an entirely different ball game in the world to worry about and it may not be global warming at all . It reminds of the modified story of the boy crying wolf all the time and everyone focused on him only. No one noticed the bear that was lurking much closer in the bushes until it was too late .

an aside, if I may provide some info I’m just now seeing, on how biased such general climate assessments have been from the start, long before the NCAs (but providing a template for 27 years of climate science activism posing as neutral science). This is info on the 1987 workshops and summary document which spurred the whole process leading into UNFCCC, IPCC, and now entities like the NCAs.

Speaking of scientific ACTIVISTS:

Biased at birth??

This crucial 1987 process which led toward the UNFCCC and the IPCC had as core sponsors three groups which have included the following activist scientists:
(1) Michael Oppenheimer – EDF
(2) John Holdren, WHRC
(3) Paul Ehrlich and Jane Lubchenko, Beijer Inst. (current affiliations, don’t know yet who might have been involved in 1987)

Far from any attempt at an objective, unbiased representation of scientists, this process was advocacy and activism at its core. No wonder they were providing a range of temp. increases estimated at 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE without drastic action.

(1) “Interesting” that the Environmental Defense Fund was one of the 3 core groups listed as initiating the whole process in 1987!

(2) Along with the “Woods Hole Research Center” (this is John Holdren’s activist group and NOT the famed Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Holdren merely glommed onto the reputation of WHOI with his activist group’s name…. resulting in lots of confusion through the years)

(3) The 3rd of the initiating groups may be more more scientifically respectable, perhaps, (the Beijer Institute affiliated with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences — although still activist in orientation) — it lists Paul Ehrlich and Jane Lubchenko among its “Fellows” who seem to have very long term affiliations with the Beijer…. although I don’t see what the make-up was in the late ’80s.

of course this is up for discussion, but the general consensus is that humans are playing a role in global warming. for the 15 listed here, there are 100s that say otherwise: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
also, look up these scientists. here’s a quote from Joseph S. D’Aleo:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

WHY??
Why do they do this?
It is plain to see that the report is sub par, so how can the President along with all those highly paid advisers push it with such vigor?
When we work out the motivation behind this abuse of power, we will be a long way closer to defeating it.

Thank you for such a detailed reply. Global warming was attempted 30 years ago, and it didn’t work that time either. Obama’s corrupt agenda knows no bounds. Look at all he has done to destroy America and Americans at the taxpayer’s expense. Global warming will greatly raise utility costs which would hurt the middle class the most.

of course this is up for discussion, but the general consensus is that humans are playing a role in global warming. for the 15 listed here, there are 100s that say otherwise: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
also, look up these scientists. here’s a quote from Joseph S. D’Aleo:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”…..”””””

Well Jon, I don’t know if the OTHER 14 distinguished scientist authors listed here would agree (or disagree) with what Joe expressed here; but rest assured that there are hundreds; maybe millions that do; so how many agree with your interpretation of the data ?

OOoops ! I guess we don’t have your learned interpretation; just a glimpse of your Wikipedia skills.

This whole site is the biggest joke I have ever seen. The graphs and statistics are handpicked to disclaim certain facts. There are not enough samples used in the graphs above, such as only 2 satellites or 4 weather balloons. The majority of scientists and climatologists are confident that the globe is warming due to anthropogenic effects. The science is simple, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations would cause an increase in warming. I can’t do anything to change your beliefs, but you all will see in the coming decades as our climate continues to warm. Already glaciers across the world have retreated by miles. How do you explain that as a part of the natural cycle.

This whole site is the biggest joke I have ever seen. The graphs and statistics are handpicked to disclaim certain facts. There are not enough samples used in the graphs above, such as only 2 satellites or 4 weather balloons. The majority of scientists and climatologists are confident that the globe is warming due to anthropogenic effects. The science is simple, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations would cause an increase in warming. I can’t do anything to change your beliefs, but you all will see in the coming decades as our climate continues to warm. Already glaciers across the world have retreated by miles. How do you explain that as a part of the natural cycle.

I understand your pain. It really hurts when your faith is challenged by realities you cannot dispute..

You provide no evidence for your several assertions which include a blatant falsehood and a false doctrine of the ‘Cult of Global Warming’.

You assert “our climate continues to warm”. You don’t say which “climate” you mean and there are climates where there has been recent warming; e.g. the Arctic.. But other climates have experienced recent cooling; e.g. the Antarctic. Importantly, global warming (discernible at 95% confidence) ceased at least 17 years ago so it cannot “continue to warm”: the present cessation of global temperature change may end with warming or cooling.

Your cult’s doctrine is false because it is incomplete; it would be true if it said CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations would cause an increase in warming IF ALL ELSE WERE HELD CONSTANT. But, of course, in reality the climate system alters in response to any imposed change.

All of this will make sense to you if you can understand the scientific method so I will explain the Null Hypothesis for you.

The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

This whole site is the biggest joke I have ever seen. The graphs and statistics are handpicked to disclaim certain facts. There are not enough samples used in the graphs above, such as only 2 satellites or 4 weather balloons. …..”””””

Well thank you Michael for saving me the trouble of having to spend hours, reading through all the trash they print here.

In future I can just ask for your advice.

So I should ignore the continuous monitoring by two satellites, or the less than continuous monitoring by four balloons, of the actual real planet earth, and instead take advantage of the countless millions of computer simulations of an imaginary virtual earth, which constantly give us the same answers; but always are different from what measurements show has already happened.

So when you move on from this joke site Michael, to other pastures more in tune with your natural capabilities, do be sure and tell all your friends to come over here for a good laugh.

But do come back, and tell us where it is that you have found a better place to spend your time educating idiots.

By the way, I was brought up being taught that the best way to convince people of something, is to hand pick graphs and statistics that support or disclaim the facts. Isn’t it kind of silly to disclaim the facts; I mean facts are after all, facts. It’s silly to say facts are not facts; they have to be, so why not present information that supports them; or of course disclaims them, in the instances where the facts are not facts.

Oh as for the glaciers retreating; that has been going on for a long time. As I recall, it actually started long before there even were any anthropogenes anywhere in the Americas, and just a very few on the whole planet, so they certainly didn’t cause it.

Although Obama is head of state for the USA & is ultimately responsible for for all that befalls the nation, his lies about CAGW are of no consequence to the unthinking Democrat party voters who suck at the government teat. The demographics of the USA are changing & the Republican party is unlikely to be voted back into government.

Here in the UK, all the major political parties will do & say anything to retain or regain power, such as the Conservatives led by shyster Cameron, Labour under millionaire Red Ed Miliband, the son of a Belgian-born Marxist academic & the perverted LimpDems

headed by Clegg, previously a Member of the European Parliament. In April 2014, Clegg refused to hold an inquiry into what he called the “repugnant” actions of former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith. Greater Manchester Police have stated that Smith, who died in 2010, abused young boys. Clegg said: “My party, the Liberal Democrats, did not know about these actions.” Clegg stated that the child abuse allegations were a matter for the police.

It’s great that all of you non-scientist politicos think this is the bees’ knees. Unfortunately, objective climate scientists well beyond the government – not the bought-and-paid-for amateurs/partisans who wrote this masterpiece of data cherry-picking – nearly unanimously disagree. That’s about 10,000+ against the 15 or so on this list. As a reminder to the lay public, professional scientists as a group are collectively the MOST skeptical, the QUICKEST to shout foul, and the MOST eager to offer contrary explanations for anything – ESPECIALLY for topics within their area of expertise – on the planet. The fact that those researching climate for a living (not the weathermen, retirees, engineers, oil geologists, political advisors, economists, community college instructors, and those with obvious conflicts of interest that comprise the majority on “review” board listed here) have reached ANY consensus, let alone a >95% one, on the causes of climate change should be objectively staggering. Instead, a well-shrouded but clearly scientifically flawed attempt such as this is presented to confirm the prejudices of those who will never know any better. As a professional scientist regularly engaged in peer review and editing research, I can confidently say that this piece would not withstand even the least stringent peer review. I’ll dispense with a detailed critique, as it’s all been established over and over and over in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and it would obviously be lost on most of this audience.

I see that the “carbon” scare has colonized your mind. FYI, there are far more legitimate scientists reading, commenting and posting articles here than you can find at realclimate, skeptical science [SkS is run by a cartoonist], or similar blogs.

You are also wrong about your imaginary “consensus”, and I can prove it: A few years ago there was a petition opposing the Kyoto Protocol. More than 31,000 American scientists and engineers co-signed the following statement:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Each of those 31,000+ co-signers had to mail in a postage paid, signed hard copy of that statement; no emails were accepted. They had to go out of their way to agree.

The climate alarmist clique has never been able to round up anywhere near that number of scientists and engineers who believe in the AGW scare. Thus, the true consensus is with skeptics of the media’s carbon narrative. And of course the “97%” nonsense has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is a number with no connection to reality.

You’re young yet. As you mature, you will see things differently. Unless, of course, AGW is your religion. If that is the case, nothing can rescue you. Glaciers could descend over Chicago a mile deep once again, and you would still be preaching your religion. Let’s hope you can start to think for yourself. The scientific facts are here, if you want to learn.

Finally, you have a personal, vested interest in taking your position. Expressing any skepticism would result in your not receiving your next pay raise, or your next promotion. You could be fired. You would certainly be ostracized, as happened to Dr Bengtsson. Pressure would be brought, and you would cave. But they would never trust you again. We know how it works. You simply cannot disagree with the narrative. You are a victim of conformity.

I can respect that your views are based on something other than science, just please don’t try to convince me they’re objective or scientific. In return, I would ask that you accept that public/global scientific consensus is not overtly biased by non-science. You can assure me all you want about your evaluation of valid science and scientists, but I’m still skeptical – that’s just what I do. My field is not climatology (so my paycheck/professional acceptance has nothing to do with my position on it), I am a Christian (as if it’s any of your business), and I’m hardly young (as if that has anything to do with capacity for objective thought). Despite not being a climatologist, however, I generate, evaluate and read scientific literature daily and almost exclusively; as an academic editor I recognize faulty logic and dishonest statistics irrespective of the topic; and as a responsible citizen scientist I follow the general science literature on climate change. As a matter of further education, consensus in science is the result of years of hypothesis testing, controversy, and vetting to arrive at the most empirically supported and logical conclusion possible. Hence, there’s very rarely a major change in direction once scientific consensus is established, unlike consensus in almost every other walk of life. In that context, the “skepticism” you cite against the Kyoto treaty came toward the beginning/middle of that empirical consensus-building process (although the “greenhouse gas” theory itself was already many decades old). We are now much closer to the end of it, wherein the consensus has been dictated by years of appropriately vetted empirical data all pointing to an overwhelmingly supported conclusion, with exclusion of major alternatives. Don’t take my word for it: pick up any general scientific journal (Nature, Science, PLoS, PNAS from any major nation, etc.) and see for yourself – these have no vested interest in pushing one scientific viewpoint over another (with minor exceptions, as in everything), and in fact thrive more on ongoing scientific controversy than anything else, provided the science is sound. That’s the point: there is now (not “a few years back”, which is ancient history in science) very little sound science NOT consistent with human activity as a major cause of climate change, and a ton of vetted, published data in support of it. Further, every one of the “scientist” signatories to the amateurish compilation above is affiliated with a known climate denial group, and most receive direct stipends or are regularly paid to speak for them. Several others have been employed long-term in industries traditionally opposed to fossil fuel regulations, or have stated religious agenda. Do your own research – I’ve done enough hand holding for today – or choose to remain the victim you accuse others of being.

“Further, every one of the “scientist” signatories to the amateurish compilation above is affiliated with a known climate denial group, and most receive direct stipends or are regularly paid to speak for them. Several others have been employed long-term in industries traditionally opposed to fossil fuel regulations, or have stated religious agenda”

typical ad-hominem. Your credibility is therefore nil.

Let’s try this since you seem to be fond of it: 100% of the pro-AGW researchers have personal and professional monetary interests in obtaining, increasing or maintaining grants, subsidies or other funding sources. Their livelihood is bound to the AGW gravy train.

Michael- you are certainly proof of free speech here on the site you say is so ridiculous.
A [typical] troll drive by attack that has no evidence, is incoherent and based upon the same viral stupidity that has the Gvernor of California, in its icy grip.
AGW is not a theory it is a conjecture, look it up. It failed to make it to a theory even, how pathetic is that?

Actually, I researched the public data on each author – multiple verifiable sources for each – and made a factual summary statement based on that; I can’t vouch for the validity of the public data, but the fact that there are obvious conflicts of interests from their own stated credentials, and the fact that they oppose an overwhelming scientific consensus, justifies more than routine suspicion. If you do the same work, you can verify this for yourself, as I have no expectation what I say will convince you, nor should it….but I also don’t expect working to establish truth is the goal of many here. It is correct that the science is now quite clear, but don’t take my word or any other single source’s word for it – read the primary, public scientific literature if you can (not political, not popular, not editorials, and certainly not internet) – go to an actual library, or even better, your local college/university’s science library. Best yet, ask a reputable climate scientist (that would include all but the 15 authors here) or 100 of them. The article, again, is a shining example of data bias and misuse, but you’d have to know a bit about scientific data, statistics and/or logic to appreciate that assessment – hence its beauty from a propaganda perspective. I’m not into wasting more time teaching basic concepts to a predominantly hostile audience, so if further interested you’re on your own.

@ Christopher Wheeler. Thank you. Your clearly written explanation falls on ears keen to ignore songs not liked. Most who comment here, including the site manager, are slowly painting themselves into a corner that they themselves can easily escape, but those who their actions do affect and who deal with life and death decisions, cannot. To argue ideology is one thing. To do so regardless of the consequences to others is unconscionable. Over my 40+ years in science and industry I have seen this act played out time and time again. Those who do not understand the science feel threatened and resort to a defense of inflexible ideology, eventually ending up on the short end of the stick. For most here this science-denial pantomime has little consequence, except for those such absurdity affects most direly.

All of your comments amount to nothing more than a big ol’ Appeal to Authority. They are merely assertions. No science is posted, just name-dropping. Sorry, that doesn’t fly here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. Put up or shut up.

I will begin by putting up some verifiable scientific facts:

1. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. See richardscourtney’s excellent post at 11:38 pm above.

3. Despite the inexorable rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, global temperature stopped rising more than 17 years ago. Where is your god now?

4. Sea level rise has not accelerated, as was universally predicted by the alarmist cult. As always, their predictions were wrong.

5. Based on the ocean intake pipe at the Monterey Bay aquarium, ocean pH has not risen. All such “acidification” claims are nonsense when compared with real world data.

6. Predictions of global ice disappearing are likewise completely wrong. Global polar ice is above its long term average.

7. The very same step rises in global T have happened repeatedly without regard to CO2 [data provided by über-alarmist Phil Jones].

8. The reason that global warming is not observed is because at current levels the effect of CO2 is minuscule. It is swamped by first- and second-order forcings [CO2 is a minor, 3rd order forcing, which can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes].

9. The planet is starved of CO2. More is better for the biosphere. In the past, CO2 has been up to twenty times higher, during times when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity. The planet has been measurably greening due directly to the rise in CO2.

10. The recent *minor* warming fluctuation is insignificant in the context of the Holocene. There was a coincidental correlation between CO2 and T from about 1979 – 1997. But that has broken down, and we have seen 17+ years of flat to cooling T.

I would post more facts, but I am concerned that your head might explode. The same for Johnathan Grady, who as a typical CAGW Kool Aid drinker, relies on assertions rather than on empricial, testable measurements.

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

There is no credible, testable, measurable scientific evidence to support the “carbon” scare. It is nothing but a pseudo-scientific money scam. That is why none of your big players like Michael Mann are willing to debate the question. Instead, they tuck tail and run away. And all we get from your side are baseless assertions. Not nearly good enough. That’s why you’re losing the debate. The public smells a rat.

I disagree with almost everything you stated, not to mention its delivery. I’m sure you’ll understand if I continue to promote trained scientists’ views on a scientific matter, over those of the general population, whose track record in “winning” scientific debates (even if this no longer is one) is fairly dismal. Here are a few objective references – one is from a government agency (NASA). I understand that may provoke a reflexive negative response, but it also provides links to verifiable outside sources, including position letters from numerous independent, non-governmental scientific societies devoid of financial stakes in climate research (please read some of these). I also included an open access article that tracks the distinctly different viewpoints of the public and of scientists on anthropogenic climate change (including non-climate scientists with no stake in the research outcomes). The article establishes with empirical data that the debate is essentially now a skunk game in the scientific community, but not with the general public (just over 50% “believe” there…or rather are swayed by valid science). Based on those numbers and most responses here, I’d guess this blogsite is representative of a microscopic fringe segment of the general public. The last site is particularly user-friendly, adjusting language to describe the consensus according to your scientific knowledge level. It also provides 174 common arguments against anthropogenic climate change and in-depth rebuttals to each. There are many hundreds more sources, of course, but these 4 or 5 are a good start. Please read thoroughly without prejudice, if possible.

I disagree with almost everything you stated, not to mention its delivery.

Of course you do, because as usual you posted no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support your religious True Belief. And be aware that you started the denigration of just about everyone here. What did you expect, a kissy-face response? Now you’re getting pushback, and you don’t like it? Tough noogies.

Next, your comment about ‘trained scientists’ doing well in debates is risible. In every debate conducted in a fair, moderated venue, the alarmist scientists have gotten their heads handed to them:

There are more. The alarmist clique refuses to debate any more, because they always lose.

Your links are not science. They all talk about the “consensus”, as if that is science. It’s not. It is strictly politics. And I note that you never responded to any of the verifiable, empirical evidence I posted proving beyond any doubt that the “carbon” scare is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

You claim that “this blogsite is representative of a microscopic fringe segment of the general public.” You are a fool. WUWT has won the internet’s Best Science & Technology website award three years running. Numerous well known climate scientists post their articles and comment here. This site has more than 182 million unique views, and a million reader comments — far more than all the alarmist blogs combined. That is not a “microscopic fringe”, so your comment displays ignorance.

The bottom line is this: every prediction made by the climate alarmist clique has been flat wrong. When someone is 100.0% wrong, rational folks will reject that world view. That is what is happening. Despite the flogging of the cAGW scare, the public is not impressed. You are losing the P.R. battle, and losing it badly. Only someone who lives in a thinly-trafficked scare blog like you do would not see what is happening.

We have had 150 years of a true “Goldilocks” climate. Amazingly, global T has not varied more than 0.7ºC over that time. In the last 12,000 years global T has varied by tens of degrees — within only a couple decades — and during times when CO2 was very low.

All you have are baseless assertions. We have empirical, testable, measureable scientific evidence proving that the “carbon” scare is complete hogwash.

Any time you want to have a debate based on the science, let me know. I’ll give you a good spanking. I promise. ☺

:) You’re funny. No, I certainly didn’t expect popularity from this site, but I just can’t let willful ignorance go without a fight. Since I see you didn’t, I’ll repeat: read, and learn, for yourself – don’t trust me and especially don’t trust sycophants on sites like this one.

Then start with yourself. You have yet to address a single point dbstealey has raised. Your failure to do so shows you did not come here to inform, but to lecture – as a parent to a child. Your problem is that you found a site of adults, not children.

As usual, you did not respond to any of the scientific evidence provided. Because you can’t. You are completely impotent when it comes to facts. All you have are your baseless assertions.

Go away, unless you want to debate facts. I am ready, as always. You alarmist clowns have no scientific evidence to support your religious True Belief. You are incredible.

Re-reading your comments, all I see are assertions. That is inadequate at the best science site on the internet. But it is all you have. That is why the public is laughing at you.

If you have any verifiable, measurable, empirical and testable evidence to support your beliefs, post it here. I will deconstruct it, because that is the essence of the Scientific Method. Posting anything else is self-serving propaganda.

The ball is in your court now. Return service, or be a chump in front of millions of readers.

I hate to tell you guys who wrote it that you did not use the best available science to debunk these claims. Let’s start with the Arctic. You make the point that the warming from 1900 to 1940 was very similar to the warming we are experiencing now. Very true, but then you drop the ball without putting it into context. The context is that Arctic warming started from nothing in 1900, after 2000 years of slow, linear, cooling. It is totally impossible for any greenhouse warming to behave that way because laws of physics would be violated. I made that point in my article that came out in 2021 (E&E 22(8):1069-1083) but you are blissfully unaware of the existence of my work. Since it was clear that greenhouse warming was out as a cause the only possible cause was a sudden start of warming at the turn of the century. Clearly it started as a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. I even unearthed direct measurements of ocean temperature reaching the Arctic that were warmer than anytime within the last 2000 years. I also used the NOAA Arctic Report card for 2010 to demonstrate that it was a two-part warming, interrupted by thirty years of cooling in mid-century. All this amounts to proof of the absence of greenhouse warming since the start of the twentieth century, and really proof that there has been no greenhouse warming at all in the Arctic for the last 2000 years.This is what you should have hammered in at them instead of that nambi-pambi talk of yours. And our climate is not cyclical, with the exception of ENSO for which a physical explanation exists (see my book). Another thing you should have pointed out is that their climate models are worthless and their use should be discontinued. It started with Hansen in 1988 when he showed three models. His model A was an attempt to project the existing climate ahead for the next 31 years. It was a miserable failure as comparison of his projections with what actually happened shows. He did it on an IBM mainframe but since then they have gone to supercomputers running million-line code. They have had 24 years to get their house in order but the output of these high-falutin’ models is no better than Hansen’s was in 1988. It is misleading and should not be used in any climate predictions at all. As you point out, “…The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels…” But a greenhouse gas requires the greenhouse effect before it can influence climate. It can be demonstrated that Hansen did not discover the greenhouse effect in 1988 as he claims. What he did was to point to a 100 year stretch of “greenhouse” warming and claim that its existence proved the existence of the greenhouse effect. But when you check the Congressional Record for that 100 year greenhouse warming you find that it isn’t. What he has done is to include a manifestly non-greenhouse warming from 1910 to 1940 as part of that “100 year greenhouse warming.” This requires that any warming older than 1940 cannot count as part of the proof of his greenhouse effect. Removing everything below 1940 leaves a wiggly temperature curve consisting of 25 years of cooling and 23 years of warming. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that no way can this remnant curve be used to prove that the greenhouse effect exists. Hansen simply did not observe the greenhouse effect in 1988 but said he did. And since nobody checked his science he has been getting away with this for the last 26 years. Since that time the IPCC has been using Hansen’s imaginary greenhouse effect in their calculations and producing nothing but imaginary CAGW with that.

Wheeler has chosen to run away. That is obviously because he cannot debate scientific facts. All his comments are assertions. The beauty of WUWT is that the scientific evidence is debated, and gradually the wrong notions are weeded out.

Mr Wheeler’s comments are self-serving nonsense. He can’t take the heat of debate here, because he will not discuss factual evidence. Wheeler says:

…I leave your world for the real one…

As if. Wheeler inhabits fantasy blogs like the thinly trafficked SkepticalScience and realclimate, where the head-nodding zombies are all in agreement for one reason: contrary comments are censored out. That is not scientific debate. It is much more akin to a Jehovah’s Witness meeting. On the other hand, WUWT has received more than 180 million unique views, and one million reader comments. Those numbers are far greater than SkS and RC combined – just like the OISM co-signers number far more than Wheeler’s relatively small clique of alarmist scientists. Therefore, WUWT is the ‘real world’. QED

Wheeler might not comment, but he will certainly read this. His carbon scare is built on media hype, not on credible science. Wheeler is feeding at the trough of pseudo-scientific ignorance. He rides the climate gravy train, terrified of seeing the public question his scam. Wheeler might even believe his swivel-eyed nonsense. But what he preaches is no more science than astrology, or phrenology. In Wheeler’s case, it is deliberate, willful ignorance.

We are fortunate to be living in a true “Goldilocks” climate. For the past century and a half, global T has fluctuated by only a few tenths of a degree. Only a dozen millennia past, global T fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two. That is scary!

Agricultural production has risen substantially, due directly to the rise in harmless CO2. There are millions of people who are alive today as a direct result of the added CO2. But the Wheelers of the world do not care that their ongoing scam would result in mass starvation, if their proposed schemes were effected. People like Wheeler have no morals, and no conscience.

I invited Wheeler to discuss scientific facts instead of making his baseless assertions, or be a chump. We can see what his decision was. He tucked tail and ran.

===========================

Arno, you always post good facts. I read everything you write, because there is always plenty of meat on the bone. But each of us debates in our own way. Scolding someone for not mentioning certain facts isn’t very helpful.

With notable exceptions for children, lawyers, and the insane, only those impervious to reason and logic debate facts, and constructive debate is predicated upon both. This is precisely why no one capable will accept your invitation to debate, and precisely why this site and the mindset most attracted to it are self-fulfilling, self-congratulatory microcosms. Feel free to write a few hundred more words to further prove the point – or some other rambling one – but it won’t change facts.

Once again Wheeler avoids any mention of scientific facts, or measurable, testable evidence. He tucks his tail between his quivering hind legs and runs off yelping at any mention of debate.

I do not need to debate, even though I could easily clean the floor with Wheeler types. But the alarmist clique runs and hides out from debating eminent climatologists like Spencer, Lindzen, Christy, and many others who reject their catastrophic AGW nonsense.

And nonsense it is, too. That is why Wheeler types are terrified of any fair, moderated debate. All his verbiage does nothing to cover up his fear of debate. Lindzen has authored more than twenty dozen peer reviewed climate papers, and he has destroyed his debate opponents. So all the BS emitted by Wheeler is just a coverup for his abject fear.

Wheeler talks about “facts”, but he has yet to reference a single one. All his comment are just baseless assertions. On the other hand, skeptics have mountains of facts and evidence that debunk the “carbon” nonsense. If Wheeler ever wants to pick an item of evidence to support the CAGW nonsense, we are here to refute him — with facts and evidence, not with always wrong models, appeals to corrupt authorities, and baseless assertions.

To moderator:
In the para above named “NCA Claim #2: …” ,
RESPONSE: “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g. NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly.

the link :http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii
appears to have a typo in it, and does not work.
Can you fix?

With great appreciation to you for running this blog,
Regards,
Geert
(physicist, does not accept the CO2-does-it religion,)

yaaawwwnnnn – here’s a single fact: the complete list of “peer reviewed” public (i.e., not commissioned) papers on climate change by Lindzer – took me all of 2 minutes to retrieve all 5 (not “twenty dozen”) from the primary scientific literature. Oh, and by the way, two are commentaries (not peer reviewed research), one is a review, and all but one (the one on which he is a lesser author) are truly ancient in general scientific terms, let alone of climatology time lines – that leaves one research paper on which he was a major author (FYI, because I’m sure you don’t know, first and last authorships are the only major positions in scientific publishing). As is plain by now, your idea of “wiping the floor” is, like most ideas presented here, utterly independent of verifiable scientific documentation. If I thought it was time well spent, I’m sure I could debunk each and every other point raised here. I’m mainly just doing this for my own entertainment at this point, however, and it’s obviously not worth the odd two minutes or so here and there.

I have a few things I would like to point out, these are things that in my mind make the climate skeptics argument much weaker. I am completely for scientific disagreement on issues, this is how science moves forward. But the following things hold back the entire debate over climate science, and for the most part these things come from the skeptic camp.

1. Actually read the things you are “rebutting”, I have no doubt that <10% of the commenters here have read the NCA. This means you are in no way qualified to make statements on what is or is not accurate in that report. The report could be complete bullshit, but you wouldn’t know if you haven’t read it.
2. CITATIONS. If you read the NCA, you would see that every single statement references a research paper (or multiple) supporting that statement. The above “rebuttal”, has very few references for important statements. I’m very confused why this doesn’t bother anybody on here. Just listing the source as “Various” and not providing links, reduces your credibility. The vast majority of statements above do not have links, count up unverified statements for yourself. For example, take the following statement from the 3rd rebuttal; “The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.” This is a smart sounding statement that means nothing. Someone please explain to me what “standard model validation and forecast reliability tests” are. Just saying that statement and not saying what statistical tests are being used is completely useless. Show me a paper or article outlining the deficiencies, you can’t just make unsupported statements, then be upset when no one listens to you. Climate scientists are not being academically dishonest, the people that wrote this article are.
3. Stop being actively deceitful in some arguments. This may be the most important one. I really have a hard time being sympathetic to climate skeptic’s point of view when there are arguments that are one of two things, 1. Actively trying to deceive the audience or 2. Ignorant beyond comprehension. The 2nd rebuttal above is the perfect example of this. Nowhere in the NCA does it claim the number of record setting heat days as evidence, or as an effect of global warming. There’s no reason they should because this is a poor indicator of overall climate. This one attempted rebuttal ruins the entire article for me. Either the article’s authors didn’t understand the material they were reading (not good), or they are trying to deceive people who haven’t read the NCA either (much worse).
4. The common theme I hear from skeptics is that certain aspects of climate change are being ignored by climate scientists, namely that climate sensitivity needs further validation and that natural factors are not taken into account. This is where I have to implore you to do your own research. The internet is a wonderful tool; don’t just read the articles that WUWT or other blogs give to you. Work your way through academic articles on the topic. Or, a slightly easier way, take a point that WUWT makes in an article. Go to google, and try and prove it wrong. After you do that, take whatever it was that convinced you it was wrong, and try and prove that wrong (essentially debating yourself with the help of valid sources). Continue to do this until you can’t find anything else to read. When you get there, congratulations! You most likely have a much better understanding of the topic than 99% of the general public.

To reiterate, I hope you will take this as a genuine attempt to communicate, not to bash you. These are the main problems that I see with this site and others like it. I hope you all consider the things I said on their merit, and do not have a knee jerk reaction to disagree. The most important part of the scientific method is being able to know when the data doesn’t support your position. There have certainly been instances on both sides of the debate of forgetting this, but as of late it has mostly come from the skeptics’ camp.

There are many claims made against the National Climate Assessment’s “lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties” surrounding their assertions, however you provide no such argument yourself. This article fails to address any important and relevant findings that are in the research. There are more than 5 claims made in the NCA and it would be more interesting to read a response to all of these claims rather than a few biased accusations with your own “lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties”.

It would require writing a book to refute all of the mistaken assertions in your post at May 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm which is here.

I answer one of your points because it encompasses all that you have misunderstood.

You write

4. The common theme I hear from skeptics is that certain aspects of climate change are being ignored by climate scientists, namely that climate sensitivity needs further validation and that natural factors are not taken into account. This is where I have to implore you to do your own research. The internet is a wonderful tool; don’t just read the articles that WUWT or other blogs give to you. Work your way through academic articles on the topic. Or, a slightly easier way, take a point that WUWT makes in an article. Go to google, and try and prove it wrong. After you do that, take whatever it was that convinced you it was wrong, and try and prove that wrong (essentially debating yourself with the help of valid sources). Continue to do this until you can’t find anything else to read. When you get there, congratulations! You most likely have a much better understanding of the topic than 99% of the general public.

You don’t say which “skeptics” claim “climate sensitivity” is “being ignored”. I have not come across any such and – contrary to your assertion in your post – they are not typical of contributors to WUWT.

Use the WUWT Search facility to look for ‘climate sensitivity’ and you will instantly see you are wrong. What is true is that the most recent report (AR5) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has lowered its estimate of climate sensitivity in response to the cessation of global warming which has happened over the most recent 17+ years.

Your suggestion that one uses Google to learn what the WUWT Search facility provides is mistaken. And I offer you the following explanation of why climate sensitivity and the climate Null Hypothesis are important. I suggest you study it until you understand it because then “You most likely have a much better understanding of the topic than 99% of the general public.”

The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

It is certainly possible I have misunderstood skeptic claims/disagreements. And yes, I most likely make the mistake of lumping skeptics together, I apologize. I do realize there are honestly people who are skeptical about GW for sound reasons, these are not the people I am directing this post at.

This doesn’t change the fact that the article I’m commenting on was very intellectually dishonest and a poor advocate for your case. And I would be curious to hear your opinion on the article in general.

I do in fact understand a null hypothesis, and you make it seem much more straight forward than it actually is. Your null hypothesis is too broad to be either proven or disproven so it is not useful in anyways. There could be a near infinite amount of null hypotheses related to global warming, so I’m not understanding your point.

John Smith, thanks for trying, but logic and reason, and especially scientific method, will not convince “some” of the skeptics on this site. They elevate this blog’s cherry-picking tactics to the level of the entirely of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the matter, and in opposition to the vast majority of it. A few of them have proven over and over just in this single post alone that, while they may recall some science buzz words from school, they have a remedial understanding of the concepts behind them at the very best. Unfortunately, your hunch about the intentions of the article’s authors is probably closer to deliberate deception, based on their known financial, religious and/or political sources of support. My advice to you would be not to waste too much of your time on this, as the best you can hope for is reams of anti-science and anti-intellectualism posing as the opposite.

Your claim is based on “peer-review” on one hand, and baseless castigations against skeptics on the other hand. What, please, is your actual evidence to justify the immediate and needless death of millions (due to enforced energy starvation between now and 2100), and the continued forced poverty, starvation, malnutrition, drought, suffering, and illness of billions more (due to your requirements and calls for additional energy deprivation)?

You have presented no evidence other than the government-paid claims of your chosen priests who are promoted by your faith in their claims. You have no evidence, only 100–year long assumptions of future computer models that have failed even in ten years.
When CO2 was steady, temperatures have risen, been steady, and fallen.
While CO2 increases were small, temperatures have risen, been steady, and fallen.
When CO2 increases were high, temperatures have risen, been steady and fallen.

SO, why should we kill millions of people to stop beneficial CO2 and temperature increases?

See, the evidence and the calculations show that YOUR “final solutions” to this non-crisis ARE the worse thing possible to do to the patient – who is actually not at all sick in any way. YOU are the one calling for chemotherapy and mastectomy and electro-shock therapy, amputation and cauterization of person’s limbs under Civil War conditions with bone saws and no anesthetic. All because of the person is ill from hunger, cold, thirst, and parasitic infections.

Cure the people. Cure the patient with food, clothing, shelter, and clean water. With electric power, concrete, steel, refrigeration, sterilized medical devices and streets and windows and screens and air conditioning, tractors, trucks, bridges and canals.

Oh. Yeah. All those require energy and effort. Not bureaucracies and death panels of UN-led Brussel spouts enforcing “green laws” fro THEIR air-conditioned fortresses of books and restaurants.